Jeremy, Please Stop Emailing Me.
by topazz
04/03/2010, 10:41 PM #
You don't need to keep asking my opinion on everything, if you won't take it on the most important thing. You know what I'm talking about. And to answer your question, 4times a week is normal, I guess. Slightly leaning towards overdoing it though.
Don't listen to her, Jer.
by Archaeopteryx
04/04/2010, 6:55 AM
When I was your age, it was easily four times a day. I slowed down when I needed glasses.
Showing posts with label Fraywatch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fraywatch. Show all posts
03 April 2010
05 March 2010
This concerns you
This concerns you
by RonB52
03/05/2010, 9:09 AM #
A short time ago, a party to a civil case in federal court in Pittsburgh sought the identities of nine individuals who had been discussing local politics on an Internet discussion board. Those nine Internet users had been discussing the party himself and the people he had sued. He didn't want to sue the Internet users, but he did want to contact them and potentially use them as witnesses in the case. All nine had posted under pseudonyms and only the website operator knew their identities.
Aside from the principle involved -- that the First Amendment protects your right to speak anonymously if you choose to do so -- there were two very practical issues at stake. The website operator did not want to be seen as willing to disclose the identities of its users, because this would tend to stifle the discussion (and hence the traffic) on its website. And the individual posters -- particularly those who had been critical of the local government -- did not want their identities disclosed because the very focus of the civil lawsuit, and the focus of their critical comments, was that the local government officials had used illegal retaliation against people who disagreed with them. These writers had a legitimate concern that if their identities became known, they would be subjected to the same kinds of retaliation.
A subpoena was issued to the website owner, and the website owner lodged an objection and refused to comply. The party who issued the subpoena asked the trial court judge to enforce the subpoena, again over the objection of the website owner.
Two days ago, the federal trial judge issued an opinion refusing to enforce the subpoena. He ruled, first, that the website owner had legal standing to raise the anonymity objection on behalf of the anonymous posters. He then adopted a four-part test for determining whether anonymity will be breached to uncover potential witnesses. Briefly stated, the subpoena has to be issued in good faith, the witness's knowledge has to relate to a core claim and has to be directly and materially relevant to that claim, and the anonymous witness has to be the only source that would permit the party to prove his or her case. This is a very demanding standard, and it recognizes that it will be the "exceptional case" where a critical need for evidence will overcome the right to use the Internet anonymously.
This case is noteworthy because, to my knowledge, it is only the third time that this precise issue has been decided anywhere in the country, and the first time for the federal court sitting in Western Pennsylvania. All three of those cases imposed similar rules and, in two of them, reached the same result -- no disclosure of identities. (The third case was remanded and I don't know what the trial judge eventually did.)
The Pittsburgh federal court opinion was announced Wednesday morning. That same afternoon, an influential State-court trial judge, in a case where the identity of an alleged Internet defamer (thus, an alleged wrongdoer and not a mere witness) was being sought, surmised that the website operator in such cases has legal standing to object to the disclosure of identifying information, not merely on behalf of the anonymous user, but on its own behalf, because it has an interest in maintaining an active and vibrant forum. That judge required the alleged victim of the libel to show that he had viable evidence of every element of a libel case (except for elements that would require knowing the identity of the writer, such as the writer's knowledge, recklessness or negligence of the truth) before he would order the disclosure of identifying information. While this ruling might be viewed as similar to the test the federal court fashioned for unmasking innocent witnesses, you should be aware that it is considerably easier to meet. In fact, First Amendment advocates are working to get courts to adopt a more demanding test. But for now, if you libel someone (or commit fraud, for example), it will be easier for your victim to enforce a subpoena to find out who you are than if you are sought only as a potential witness.
by RonB52
03/05/2010, 9:09 AM #
A short time ago, a party to a civil case in federal court in Pittsburgh sought the identities of nine individuals who had been discussing local politics on an Internet discussion board. Those nine Internet users had been discussing the party himself and the people he had sued. He didn't want to sue the Internet users, but he did want to contact them and potentially use them as witnesses in the case. All nine had posted under pseudonyms and only the website operator knew their identities.
Aside from the principle involved -- that the First Amendment protects your right to speak anonymously if you choose to do so -- there were two very practical issues at stake. The website operator did not want to be seen as willing to disclose the identities of its users, because this would tend to stifle the discussion (and hence the traffic) on its website. And the individual posters -- particularly those who had been critical of the local government -- did not want their identities disclosed because the very focus of the civil lawsuit, and the focus of their critical comments, was that the local government officials had used illegal retaliation against people who disagreed with them. These writers had a legitimate concern that if their identities became known, they would be subjected to the same kinds of retaliation.
A subpoena was issued to the website owner, and the website owner lodged an objection and refused to comply. The party who issued the subpoena asked the trial court judge to enforce the subpoena, again over the objection of the website owner.
Two days ago, the federal trial judge issued an opinion refusing to enforce the subpoena. He ruled, first, that the website owner had legal standing to raise the anonymity objection on behalf of the anonymous posters. He then adopted a four-part test for determining whether anonymity will be breached to uncover potential witnesses. Briefly stated, the subpoena has to be issued in good faith, the witness's knowledge has to relate to a core claim and has to be directly and materially relevant to that claim, and the anonymous witness has to be the only source that would permit the party to prove his or her case. This is a very demanding standard, and it recognizes that it will be the "exceptional case" where a critical need for evidence will overcome the right to use the Internet anonymously.
This case is noteworthy because, to my knowledge, it is only the third time that this precise issue has been decided anywhere in the country, and the first time for the federal court sitting in Western Pennsylvania. All three of those cases imposed similar rules and, in two of them, reached the same result -- no disclosure of identities. (The third case was remanded and I don't know what the trial judge eventually did.)
The Pittsburgh federal court opinion was announced Wednesday morning. That same afternoon, an influential State-court trial judge, in a case where the identity of an alleged Internet defamer (thus, an alleged wrongdoer and not a mere witness) was being sought, surmised that the website operator in such cases has legal standing to object to the disclosure of identifying information, not merely on behalf of the anonymous user, but on its own behalf, because it has an interest in maintaining an active and vibrant forum. That judge required the alleged victim of the libel to show that he had viable evidence of every element of a libel case (except for elements that would require knowing the identity of the writer, such as the writer's knowledge, recklessness or negligence of the truth) before he would order the disclosure of identifying information. While this ruling might be viewed as similar to the test the federal court fashioned for unmasking innocent witnesses, you should be aware that it is considerably easier to meet. In fact, First Amendment advocates are working to get courts to adopt a more demanding test. But for now, if you libel someone (or commit fraud, for example), it will be easier for your victim to enforce a subpoena to find out who you are than if you are sought only as a potential witness.
20 June 2007
Locked posts and color coded boards
a fray poem
by daystar
06/20/2007, 9:59 AM #
Locked posts and color coded boards
by daystar
Locked posts and color coded boards
simple hearts and sinister sores
lost in a world
of ongoing wars
it's not the same
as it was before
Peace, be still
now, look around you
is this the fray?
or is this you?
you came here
just to post some more
are you lost?
who's keeping score?
it's high technology
it's a loaded gun
it's fun -n- games
you better run
don't ask for mercy
from a crowd of one
everyone judges you
until they've won
so hang on tight
keep your head
look inside
and get out of bed
you can raise your voice
if you think that's right
you can listen up
or start a fight
so believe in yourself
or a higher you
but come to play
with others who
need your thoughts
to feed upon
while they tear you up
and steal your fun
it's a locked post
no need to reply
no that's not said here
the color is why
learn the culture
and look inside
the fray's around you
are you alive?
days, daysman
by daystar
06/20/2007, 9:59 AM #
Locked posts and color coded boards
by daystar
Locked posts and color coded boards
simple hearts and sinister sores
lost in a world
of ongoing wars
it's not the same
as it was before
Peace, be still
now, look around you
is this the fray?
or is this you?
you came here
just to post some more
are you lost?
who's keeping score?
it's high technology
it's a loaded gun
it's fun -n- games
you better run
don't ask for mercy
from a crowd of one
everyone judges you
until they've won
so hang on tight
keep your head
look inside
and get out of bed
you can raise your voice
if you think that's right
you can listen up
or start a fight
so believe in yourself
or a higher you
but come to play
with others who
need your thoughts
to feed upon
while they tear you up
and steal your fun
it's a locked post
no need to reply
no that's not said here
the color is why
learn the culture
and look inside
the fray's around you
are you alive?
days, daysman
24 January 2006
13 July 2005
Recurring Nightmare...
Subject: Kevin, if you would? url#m=15104119
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 13 2005 12:36PM
Another poster, without either asking me or telling me, has posted my poem "N" (for Nightmares) on the Poems Fray, when I posted it intentionally on the BOTF yesterday. I believe he thinks he is making some sort of statement by doing so?
The text of my original Top Post (found at url#m=15103306) will explain my thinking, I believe.
I do not feel that such Fray behavior is appropriate and hope you will consider removing Mr. "Ndr's" posting of MY poem.
Actually, I believe such behavior to be far worse than "inappropriate" but that is up to you to decide, of course.
Thank you for your consideration.
(Con)Tempo
Subject: I'm thinking that if
From: EnsleyHill
Date: Jul 14 2005 6:20PM
Kevin replied to your request you wouldn't like what you read. Ender posted your poem, complete with your own editorial comments, and without posting any editorial comments of his own, which would presumably serve your own purposes for posting it. Say thank you and move on.
Secondly, I've lost track of how many posts I've read where you are trying to coerce posters into posting to your posts. That is unseemly and annoying. Can't you see that? It is much more gratifying to have hits from those who wonder over of their own volition.
Posts such as your "N" poem should stand upon their own merits, and not bleed over into side-issues that only detract from the stated purpose.
Subject: You're probably right, which would just prove
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 14 2005 7:00PM
what an execrable excuse for an "Editor" he actually is. An opinion that one sees multiplying daily, like the proverbial rabbit. You've said it yourself, how many times, while chastising him for his infamous unfairness and blatant favoritism. IF anyone else had done that, besides one of KA's notorious favorites, that post of E's would probably have been pulled. And I can guarantee you that Moira AND JDConnor would have yanked it, immediately. GUARANTEE.
What E. did was ethically INexcusable and if it had happened to you, Ensley, I wonder if you would just say "Thank you" and slink away, hat in hand.
Would you? Please answer honestly.
WHY should I thank him? You know, as well as I do, what he thinks of me, and thus, that his motives had to be impure. WERE he a poster who thinks well of me and who hasn't devoted THREE-FOUR YEARS of his Fray-life to slamming me, obviously, I might feel differently as I posted to someone earlier today, on the PFRAY.
As to the latter behavior that seems to bother you so much, why do you CARE? (I see some Fray-behaviors of yours that I'm not wild about, but I don't call them out.)
I know a ton of people around here, I post too much as we all know, and I can't count on them seeing every post I make. People actually THANK ME for such "heads-up," Ensley, believe it or not.
You may not, which is your right & your business, but others do.
With some people around here, I'm just "damned if I do and damned if I don't," and sometimes you are one of those people. No? I could stop that behavior immediately and NEVER repeat it, and it would (still)follow me for years. You KNOW that, E.
By the way, it is a sign of my respect and affection for you that I am taking my time to respond and to give you a serious answer. Please don't dictate to me how to behave, Ensley. I don't like it when men do that to me. Most women don't (like it, that is).
Most women also don't dictate or lecture in that way.
Thank you,
Tempo
Subject: I replied because you said
From: EnsleyHill
Date: Jul 14 2005 7:32PM
you wanted comments about it. I gave you sincere comments about it.
"What E. did was ethically INexcusable and if it had happened to you, Ensley, I wonder if you would just say "Thank you" and slink away, hat in hand.
Would you? Please answer honestly"
--You don't have to wonder about my reactions. Check out the top post in which Ender editorializes a bunch of my past comments and also check out my responses in that thread. The difference being that in your case he reposted something that you yourself are promoting at the present time.
--So what of it, whatever his motives are? If he is posting something you are evidently proud of, what's the problem?
--You resent people lecturing or trying to influence your posting??? Then stop doing it yourself! No one respects the posting liberties of others any more than I do, nor any less than you do! Your attempts to influence, even control, other posters, is legendary.
"With some people around here, I'm just "damned if I do and damned if I don't," and sometimes you are one of those people. No? I could stop that behavior immediately and NEVER repeat it, and it would (still)follow me for years. You KNOW that, E. "
False. I so rarely bring up past postings/posting behaviors, even under provocation, that I doubt if you could find an example. Memories on the Fray, in general, are short-lived, with rare exceptions. Poor posting practices, once ceased, seldom become issues.
The issues I addressed in my post to you are all current.
As to the latter behavior that seems to bother you so much, why do you CARE? (I see some Fray-behaviors of yours that I'm not wild about, but I don't call them out.
I know a ton of people around here, I post too much as we all know, and I can't count on them seeing every post I make. People actually THANK ME for such "heads-up," Ensley, believe it or not.
I'll use one of Ghassan's favorite words here: disingenuous. Your preoccupation with hitcounts, rather than discourse, do your posts a disservice. I'm not talking about a casual heads-up. Does everyone need a heads-up? Can no one read, you figure, even when it's there on the front page?
Feel free to call out any and all of my bad habits.
My point: there is no reason at all why Ender's post should be pulled. You still haven't thanked him for the free publicity.
Subject: "There is no reason at all why..."
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 14 2005 7:46PM
Sorry, have to disagree again. There were TONS of reasons for it to be pulled. Motivation, and lack of courtesy, PRIMARY among them. It is NOT something that is done, frankly.
Btw, the post has been pulled. (See dtat2's post, above, and I just checked it out. It's gone.0
I've already addressed all the points in your response post, I believe, so will say, with respect,
Goodnight Ensley,
T.
Subject: He should not have deleted it.
From: EnsleyHill
Date: Jul 14 2005 8:30PM
Which harks back to some of my earlier comments summarized in the post Ender did about me.
Good night.
Subject: RE: But he did.
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 14 2005 8:33PM
Ah, I think I get it now, your thinking here.
But as so often with your comments, am not totally sure.
Goodnight, Ensley.
T.
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 13 2005 12:36PM
Another poster, without either asking me or telling me, has posted my poem "N" (for Nightmares) on the Poems Fray, when I posted it intentionally on the BOTF yesterday. I believe he thinks he is making some sort of statement by doing so?
The text of my original Top Post (found at url#m=15103306) will explain my thinking, I believe.
I do not feel that such Fray behavior is appropriate and hope you will consider removing Mr. "Ndr's" posting of MY poem.
Actually, I believe such behavior to be far worse than "inappropriate" but that is up to you to decide, of course.
Thank you for your consideration.
(Con)Tempo
Subject: I'm thinking that if
From: EnsleyHill
Date: Jul 14 2005 6:20PM
Kevin replied to your request you wouldn't like what you read. Ender posted your poem, complete with your own editorial comments, and without posting any editorial comments of his own, which would presumably serve your own purposes for posting it. Say thank you and move on.
Secondly, I've lost track of how many posts I've read where you are trying to coerce posters into posting to your posts. That is unseemly and annoying. Can't you see that? It is much more gratifying to have hits from those who wonder over of their own volition.
Posts such as your "N" poem should stand upon their own merits, and not bleed over into side-issues that only detract from the stated purpose.
Subject: You're probably right, which would just prove
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 14 2005 7:00PM
what an execrable excuse for an "Editor" he actually is. An opinion that one sees multiplying daily, like the proverbial rabbit. You've said it yourself, how many times, while chastising him for his infamous unfairness and blatant favoritism. IF anyone else had done that, besides one of KA's notorious favorites, that post of E's would probably have been pulled. And I can guarantee you that Moira AND JDConnor would have yanked it, immediately. GUARANTEE.
What E. did was ethically INexcusable and if it had happened to you, Ensley, I wonder if you would just say "Thank you" and slink away, hat in hand.
Would you? Please answer honestly.
WHY should I thank him? You know, as well as I do, what he thinks of me, and thus, that his motives had to be impure. WERE he a poster who thinks well of me and who hasn't devoted THREE-FOUR YEARS of his Fray-life to slamming me, obviously, I might feel differently as I posted to someone earlier today, on the PFRAY.
As to the latter behavior that seems to bother you so much, why do you CARE? (I see some Fray-behaviors of yours that I'm not wild about, but I don't call them out.)
I know a ton of people around here, I post too much as we all know, and I can't count on them seeing every post I make. People actually THANK ME for such "heads-up," Ensley, believe it or not.
You may not, which is your right & your business, but others do.
With some people around here, I'm just "damned if I do and damned if I don't," and sometimes you are one of those people. No? I could stop that behavior immediately and NEVER repeat it, and it would (still)follow me for years. You KNOW that, E.
By the way, it is a sign of my respect and affection for you that I am taking my time to respond and to give you a serious answer. Please don't dictate to me how to behave, Ensley. I don't like it when men do that to me. Most women don't (like it, that is).
Most women also don't dictate or lecture in that way.
Thank you,
Tempo
Subject: I replied because you said
From: EnsleyHill
Date: Jul 14 2005 7:32PM
you wanted comments about it. I gave you sincere comments about it.
"What E. did was ethically INexcusable and if it had happened to you, Ensley, I wonder if you would just say "Thank you" and slink away, hat in hand.
Would you? Please answer honestly"
--You don't have to wonder about my reactions. Check out the top post in which Ender editorializes a bunch of my past comments and also check out my responses in that thread. The difference being that in your case he reposted something that you yourself are promoting at the present time.
--So what of it, whatever his motives are? If he is posting something you are evidently proud of, what's the problem?
--You resent people lecturing or trying to influence your posting??? Then stop doing it yourself! No one respects the posting liberties of others any more than I do, nor any less than you do! Your attempts to influence, even control, other posters, is legendary.
"With some people around here, I'm just "damned if I do and damned if I don't," and sometimes you are one of those people. No? I could stop that behavior immediately and NEVER repeat it, and it would (still)follow me for years. You KNOW that, E. "
False. I so rarely bring up past postings/posting behaviors, even under provocation, that I doubt if you could find an example. Memories on the Fray, in general, are short-lived, with rare exceptions. Poor posting practices, once ceased, seldom become issues.
The issues I addressed in my post to you are all current.
As to the latter behavior that seems to bother you so much, why do you CARE? (I see some Fray-behaviors of yours that I'm not wild about, but I don't call them out.
I know a ton of people around here, I post too much as we all know, and I can't count on them seeing every post I make. People actually THANK ME for such "heads-up," Ensley, believe it or not.
I'll use one of Ghassan's favorite words here: disingenuous. Your preoccupation with hitcounts, rather than discourse, do your posts a disservice. I'm not talking about a casual heads-up. Does everyone need a heads-up? Can no one read, you figure, even when it's there on the front page?
Feel free to call out any and all of my bad habits.
My point: there is no reason at all why Ender's post should be pulled. You still haven't thanked him for the free publicity.
Subject: "There is no reason at all why..."
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 14 2005 7:46PM
Sorry, have to disagree again. There were TONS of reasons for it to be pulled. Motivation, and lack of courtesy, PRIMARY among them. It is NOT something that is done, frankly.
Btw, the post has been pulled. (See dtat2's post, above, and I just checked it out. It's gone.0
I've already addressed all the points in your response post, I believe, so will say, with respect,
Goodnight Ensley,
T.
Subject: He should not have deleted it.
From: EnsleyHill
Date: Jul 14 2005 8:30PM
Which harks back to some of my earlier comments summarized in the post Ender did about me.
Good night.
Subject: RE: But he did.
From: Tempo-La-Poete
Date: Jul 14 2005 8:33PM
Ah, I think I get it now, your thinking here.
But as so often with your comments, am not totally sure.
Goodnight, Ensley.
T.
08 June 2005
17 March 2005
23 January 2005
14 January 2005
31 December 2004
I'll Be Blunt...
The day Kevin banned me, EnsleyHill (I think he was posting as IdesofMarch at the time) asked Kevin why he'd banned Catnapping. Kevin responded:
05 December 2004
11 April 2004
WVMicko: Ahead of the Curve
Be sure to clik on this image to enlarge it.
Subject: Robes...and Kevin
From: WVMicko
Date: Apr 11 2004 1:45PM
Y'know, this is rather tough issue to figure out. I don't doubt that Kevin wiped her MBTU. I like Tryin', but she has a history of blowing her stack and making abusive posts all over the place in retaliation for the provokations she gets. That's a flushable offense, both because those posts are abusive and because she makes so many of them.
However, Tryin' herself is being stalked and harassed by at least two people who post under at least 5-6 nicknames at any one time. And as we both know, they like to use similar nicknames to try to fool people into thinking that they're someone else...a couple of weeks ago, they posed as slipstream ("silpstream"), last night, as Tryin' herself in her new nickname ("LittleMarinegirl88" - "LittleMarinegrrl88").
Bad enough, of course. But it's possible that that's as far as it's goes, that Tryin' herself is unstable enough to be lying about the rest of what's happening, or even that "Tryin'' is actually a long-term pose as part of Chatterbox's long soap opera. I can't help but notice that Tryin''s response to Lillith-style harassment -- a furious deluge of insults and anger -- is an awful lot like Laurie's.
This is supported by the (presumed) results of a Passport ban, where the nickname becomes tied to the banned Passport and is therefore inaccessable to anyone, including that old user when logging on with a new Passport.
On the other hand, the Lillith types (who you're accusing of being SpiderMBA plus an accomplice) could also have hacked the system, and everything Tryin' claims could be true. This is supported by the poser's recent trolling for email addresses, which started around the same time they made the "silpstream" pose...which also happens to be around the same time that Tryin' first complained that her nickname had been stolen.
Also, you have to consider the possibility that the entire thing could be a ruse, a great big hoax perpetrated by "Tryin'" and her "harassers," whoever they may be, working together. It's pretty easy to simulate whatever is going on re "nickname stealings" and "Passport hacks" if the so-called hackers have been told the passwords.
And I have to say that the whole Lillith vs. Laurie war, the one that's been going on for years, just doesn't smell right to me. When they're flaming each other with their imaginary armies of supporters, they act like psychotics who simply can't control themselves. Yet they do a perfectly good job of simulating sane, rational people in other convesations. That just doesn't add up to me: I find it far more believable that sane, rational people can pretend to be psychotic than psychotics can pretend to be sane, rational people. It seems as likely as any other explanation that Lillith and Laurie are just playing a big, huge, psychodramatic game. What's more, I'm not sure if I can accept your theory that last night's "Blowretta," and aliases, are actually SpiderMBA. Spud has a very rigid set of behaviors (his cut-and-paste list-keeping, his labelling of all those who offend him as "liberals," his profanity obsession, etc.) and a way of "speaking" that's quite consistent. "Blowretta" matched none of this. Fact is, "Blowretta" sounded more like Lillith than anyone else. And as I noted above, Tryin' behaves and sounds an awful lot like Laurie.
If Tryin' is reading this and the above is not true, then all I can say is that's the way it looks. I wouldn't bother trying too hard to rebut it, as I doubt you could provide convincing proof one way or another. Only one person can clear this up, and his mention is coming up real soon, now.
Anyway if I had to guess, I'd say that's what's going on. Still, two problems remain:
1) The possibility of Passport hacks is too serious a problem to be ignored.
2) Why the hell haven't Lillith and Laurie ever been effectively banned? As I understand it, a ban lasts thirty days and is linked to the offender's IP address. When banned, we should not see either one of them for an entire month. I may be wrong on the IP, I'm not sure on that part at all, and it could be that the ban is only linked to the offender's Passport, which means that they can come back once they've created a new one. But dammit, Kevin needs to shed some light on that mystery.
To Kevin: Kev, you've got to post on this and let us know what's going on. The Lillith and Laurie situation was tolerable when it was confined to Chatterbox, it didn't bother anyone who didn't hang out there. But they've brought thier games to BOTF and Fraywatch, now. People are justifiably angry about it, and more to the point, outraged that you haven't been able to ban them. If you can't effectively ban them because the software doesn't allow for IP bans, fine. Tell us. At least we'll know what the problem is. Likewise, these alleged hacks. I assume that you have access to Passport informantion and (possibly) the offender's IP addresses, so you should be able to get a rough idea of what's going on fairly easily. So let us know whether you think that the Passport system is probably secure, or whether there's a chance it's been compromised, and the MSN techs will have to investigate. The situation is bad enough, but the worst part about it is that nobody knows what's going on. Your Fraysters won't really have a problem handling this sort of crap provided that we know what the system can and cannot do. There's also a cloud hanging over several posters who may be blameless, which would be unfair to them. So clue us in, willya?
wvmicko
Subject: Robes...and Kevin
From: WVMicko
Date: Apr 11 2004 1:45PM
Y'know, this is rather tough issue to figure out. I don't doubt that Kevin wiped her MBTU. I like Tryin', but she has a history of blowing her stack and making abusive posts all over the place in retaliation for the provokations she gets. That's a flushable offense, both because those posts are abusive and because she makes so many of them.
However, Tryin' herself is being stalked and harassed by at least two people who post under at least 5-6 nicknames at any one time. And as we both know, they like to use similar nicknames to try to fool people into thinking that they're someone else...a couple of weeks ago, they posed as slipstream ("silpstream"), last night, as Tryin' herself in her new nickname ("LittleMarinegirl88" - "LittleMarinegrrl88").
Bad enough, of course. But it's possible that that's as far as it's goes, that Tryin' herself is unstable enough to be lying about the rest of what's happening, or even that "Tryin'' is actually a long-term pose as part of Chatterbox's long soap opera. I can't help but notice that Tryin''s response to Lillith-style harassment -- a furious deluge of insults and anger -- is an awful lot like Laurie's.
This is supported by the (presumed) results of a Passport ban, where the nickname becomes tied to the banned Passport and is therefore inaccessable to anyone, including that old user when logging on with a new Passport.
On the other hand, the Lillith types (who you're accusing of being SpiderMBA plus an accomplice) could also have hacked the system, and everything Tryin' claims could be true. This is supported by the poser's recent trolling for email addresses, which started around the same time they made the "silpstream" pose...which also happens to be around the same time that Tryin' first complained that her nickname had been stolen.
Also, you have to consider the possibility that the entire thing could be a ruse, a great big hoax perpetrated by "Tryin'" and her "harassers," whoever they may be, working together. It's pretty easy to simulate whatever is going on re "nickname stealings" and "Passport hacks" if the so-called hackers have been told the passwords.
And I have to say that the whole Lillith vs. Laurie war, the one that's been going on for years, just doesn't smell right to me. When they're flaming each other with their imaginary armies of supporters, they act like psychotics who simply can't control themselves. Yet they do a perfectly good job of simulating sane, rational people in other convesations. That just doesn't add up to me: I find it far more believable that sane, rational people can pretend to be psychotic than psychotics can pretend to be sane, rational people. It seems as likely as any other explanation that Lillith and Laurie are just playing a big, huge, psychodramatic game. What's more, I'm not sure if I can accept your theory that last night's "Blowretta," and aliases, are actually SpiderMBA. Spud has a very rigid set of behaviors (his cut-and-paste list-keeping, his labelling of all those who offend him as "liberals," his profanity obsession, etc.) and a way of "speaking" that's quite consistent. "Blowretta" matched none of this. Fact is, "Blowretta" sounded more like Lillith than anyone else. And as I noted above, Tryin' behaves and sounds an awful lot like Laurie.
If Tryin' is reading this and the above is not true, then all I can say is that's the way it looks. I wouldn't bother trying too hard to rebut it, as I doubt you could provide convincing proof one way or another. Only one person can clear this up, and his mention is coming up real soon, now.
Anyway if I had to guess, I'd say that's what's going on. Still, two problems remain:
1) The possibility of Passport hacks is too serious a problem to be ignored.
2) Why the hell haven't Lillith and Laurie ever been effectively banned? As I understand it, a ban lasts thirty days and is linked to the offender's IP address. When banned, we should not see either one of them for an entire month. I may be wrong on the IP, I'm not sure on that part at all, and it could be that the ban is only linked to the offender's Passport, which means that they can come back once they've created a new one. But dammit, Kevin needs to shed some light on that mystery.
To Kevin: Kev, you've got to post on this and let us know what's going on. The Lillith and Laurie situation was tolerable when it was confined to Chatterbox, it didn't bother anyone who didn't hang out there. But they've brought thier games to BOTF and Fraywatch, now. People are justifiably angry about it, and more to the point, outraged that you haven't been able to ban them. If you can't effectively ban them because the software doesn't allow for IP bans, fine. Tell us. At least we'll know what the problem is. Likewise, these alleged hacks. I assume that you have access to Passport informantion and (possibly) the offender's IP addresses, so you should be able to get a rough idea of what's going on fairly easily. So let us know whether you think that the Passport system is probably secure, or whether there's a chance it's been compromised, and the MSN techs will have to investigate. The situation is bad enough, but the worst part about it is that nobody knows what's going on. Your Fraysters won't really have a problem handling this sort of crap provided that we know what the system can and cannot do. There's also a cloud hanging over several posters who may be blameless, which would be unfair to them. So clue us in, willya?
wvmicko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
